2018 Ohio 4442
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2007 Flo Tigner co-signed a student loan for her son; the loan defaulted and National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 sued her in October 2017.
- Tigner was served via FedEx on November 7, 2017, did not file an answer or otherwise appear before plaintiff moved for default judgment.
- The trial court granted default judgment on December 14, 2017 for $59,656.51. Tigner filed a pro se appeal to this Court; the case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of a Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
- On remand Tigner (now represented) filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion arguing (1) denial of due process because the local rule required 14 days to respond to motions, (2) a possible statute-of-limitations defense, and (3) excusable neglect.
- The trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion, finding Tigner failed to show excusable neglect or present operative facts/affidavits showing a meritorious defense; Tigner appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: local 14-day rule did not apply to default-judgment motions when defendant never appeared; Civ.R. 55 and Civ.R. 60(B)/GTE standards controlled, and Tigner failed to satisfy them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mont. Co. C.P.R. 2.05(B)(2)(b)’s 14-day response period barred entry of default judgment before 14 days elapsed | Local rule applies to motions and required a 14-day window before ruling | Rule applied here and court deprived Tigner of due process by ruling before 14 days elapsed | Local rule inapplicable because defendant made no appearance; Civ.R. 55 governs default judgment and no response period was required |
| Whether Civ.R. 55 required seven-day notice before default judgment because of an appearance | Plaintiff argues no appearance occurred, so no Civ.R. 55 notice entitlement | Tigner contends she communicated intent to defend and thus appeared | Court held no appearance in the record; Civ.R. 55 notice not triggered and default judgment was proper |
| Whether Tigner showed excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) | N/A (plaintiff opposed vacatur) | Tigner claimed ignorance/pro se status and other circumstances excused her failure to answer | Court held pro se status/ignorance not excusable neglect; no unusual circumstances shown |
| Whether Tigner demonstrated a meritorious defense or other grounds under Civ.R. 60(B) | N/A | Tigner asserted possible statute-of-limitations and inability to pay but provided no affidavits or operative facts | Court held she failed GTE test: no proof of excusable neglect and no prima facie meritorious defense; motion properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (Ohio 1976) (three-part test for Civ.R. 60(B) relief)
- Strack v. Pelton, 70 Ohio St.3d 172 (Ohio 1994) (all three GTE requirements are conjunctive)
- AMCA Internatl. Corp. v. Carlton, 10 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 1984) (appearance requirement and duty to notify opposing counsel when seeking default)
- Ohio Valley Radiology Assocs., Inc. v. Ohio Valley Hosp. Assn., 28 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1986) (defendant who does not appear admits complaint allegations)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)